1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Written Language & Literacy
  4. Volume 27, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigated how single-text reading comprehension and individual differences contribute to multiple-text integration. One hundred fourteen students read sets of multiple texts on two distinct topics and completed two multiple-text integration tasks for each topic: an essay and a sentence verification task. The tasks were evaluated across three integration levels: selecting main ideas, forming generalizations, and generating deep-level inferences. The researchers conducted a series of linear regressions and hierarchical linear models separately for each integration task and integration level. The findings revealed that reading comprehension measures differentially influenced the two tasks and three integration processing levels. Additionally, individual differences — including reading strategies, interest, and vocabulary — were found to predict multiple-text integration performance. Overall, the results suggest that reading comprehension skills and individual differences uniquely predict various aspects of intertextual integration, highlighting the complex nature of how readers process and synthesize information across multiple texts.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
2025-06-03
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I.
    (2017) Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12(2), 193–232. 10.1007/s11409‑016‑9165‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I.
    (2018) Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. Handbook of multiple source use, 99–116. 10.4324/9781315627496‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blaum, D., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Britt, M. A.
    (2017) Thinking about global warming: Effect of policy-related documents and prompts on learning about causes of climate change. Discourse Processes, 541, 303–316. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136169
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136169 [Google Scholar]
  4. Braasch, J. L., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø.
    (2014) Incremental theories of intelligence predict multiple document comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 311, 11–20. 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I.
    (2014) Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 301, 9–24. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H.
    (2013) Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26(3), 321–348. 10.1007/s11145‑012‑9371‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x [Google Scholar]
  7. Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L.
    (2018) The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. InM. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd. Ed.) (pp.141–166). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315687384‑10
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687384-10 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S.
    (2008) Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 814–840. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D. P., & Mencl, W. E.
    (2007) Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of learning disabilities, 40(3), 226–243. 10.1177/00222194070400030401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030401 [Google Scholar]
  10. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L.
    (2012) Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. InReading-from words to multiple texts (pp.174–193). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203131268‑15
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203131268-15 [Google Scholar]
  11. Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J.
    (2004) Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 251, 313–339. 10.1080/02702710490522658
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490522658 [Google Scholar]
  12. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.
    (2020) Multiple document comprehension. InOxford research encyclopedia of education. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.867
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.867 [Google Scholar]
  13. Britt, M. A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Larson, A. A., & Perfetti, C. A.
    (2004) Using intelligent feedback to improve sourcing and integration in students’ essays. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3, 4), 359–374.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Castells, N., Minguela, M., Solé, I., Miras, M., Nadal, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G.
    (2022) Improving questioning–answering strategies in learning from multiple complementary texts: An intervention study. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(3), 879–912. 10.1002/rrq.451
     https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.451 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cerdán, R., Máñez, I. & Serrano-Mendizábal, M.
    (2021) Reading from Multiple Documents. The role of text availability and question type. Reading Research Quaterly, on-line first. 10.1002/rrq.380
     https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.380 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cerdán, R., Pérez, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Rouet, J. F.
    (2019) To answer questions from text, one has to understand what the question is asking: differential effects of question aids as a function of comprehension skill. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2111–2124. 10.1007/s11145‑019‑09943‑w
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09943-w [Google Scholar]
  17. Cervetti, G. N., & Wright, T. S.
    (2020) The role of knowledge in understanding and learning from text. Handbook of reading research, 51. 10.4324/9781315676302‑13
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676302-13 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen, C. H., & Chen, M. L.
    (2023) Role of Fourth Graders’ Vocabulary Ability in Modulating Their Multiple-Text Comprehension: An Eye Tracking Study. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 55(1), 181–204. 10.6251/BEP.202309_55(1).0008
     https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.202309_55(1).0008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cho, B. Y., Afflerbach, P., & Han, H.
    (2018) Strategic processing in accessing, comprehending, and using multiple sources online. Handbook of multiple source use, 133–150. 10.4324/9781315627496‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L.
    (2009) Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 13–27. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Currie, N. K., & Cain, K.
    (2015) Children’s inference generation: The role of vocabulary and working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1371, 57–75. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S.
    (2006) Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 101, 277–299. 10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Daher, T. A., and Kiewra, K. A.
    (2016) An investigation of SOAR study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 461, 10–21. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 19(4), 450–466. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90312‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Demir, B., Haverkamp, Y. E., Braasch, J. L., & Bråten, I.
    (2024) Investigating the role of prior knowledge in comprehending intratextual and intertextual relationships when reading multiple texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 1111, 1024421. 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102442
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102442 [Google Scholar]
  26. Espinas, D. R., & Chandler, B. W.
    (2024) Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 1–48. 10.1007/s10648‑024‑09889‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Firetto, C. M., & Van Meter, P. N.
    (2018) Inspiring integration in college students reading multiple biology texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 651, 123–134. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  28. Firetto, C. M.
    (2020) Learning from multiple complementary perspectives. Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives, 223–244. 10.4324/9780429443961‑16
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429443961-16 [Google Scholar]
  29. Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L.
    (2020) Going beyond children’s single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders’ multiple-document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 449–472. 10.1111/bjep.12288
     https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12288 [Google Scholar]
  30. Follmer, D. J.
    (2018) Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 42–60. 10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gilboa, A., Kave, G.
    2007 The Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS) in Hebrew. Haifa University, Haifa
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R.
    (2012) The role of CLEAR thinking in learning science from multiple-document inquiry tasks. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(1), 63–78. https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/10
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Guo, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Williams, R. S.
    (2011) The relation of morphological awareness and syntactic awareness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary knowledge a mediating variable?Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. 10.1177/1086296X11403086
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11403086 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hagen, Å. M., Braasch, J. L., and Bråten, I.
    (2014) Relationships between spontaneous note-taking, self-reported strategies and comprehension when reading multiple texts in different task conditions. J. Res. Read.371, 141–157. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2012.01536.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01536.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Hidi, S.
    (2001) Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational psychology review, 13(3), 191–209. 10.1023/A:1016667621114
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016667621114 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hildenbrand, L., & Wiley, J.
    (2023) Working memory capacity as a predictor of multiple text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 60(4–5), 378–396. 10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197690
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197690 [Google Scholar]
  37. Karimi, M. N.
    (2015) L2 multiple-documents comprehension: exploring the contributions of L1 reading ability and strategic processing. System521, 14–25. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.04.019
     https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.04.019 [Google Scholar]
  38. Keenan, J. M.
    (2012) Measure for measure: Challenges in assessing reading comprehension1. InJ. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how to assess reading ability (pp.77–87). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K.
    (2008) Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 121, 281–300. 10.1080/10888430802132279
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kintsch, W.
    (2004) The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. InR. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.).
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Linderholm, T., Dobson, J., & Yarbrough, M. B.
    (2016) The benefit of self-testing and interleaving for synthesizing concepts across multiple physiology texts. Advances in Physiology Education, 401, 329–334. 10.1152/advan.00157.2015
     https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00157.2015 [Google Scholar]
  42. List, A., & Alexander, P. A.
    (2019) Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20–39. 10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514 [Google Scholar]
  43. List, A., & Alexander, P. A.
    (2020, October). Strategy use in learning from multiple texts: An investigation of the integrative framework of learning from multiple texts. InFrontiers in Education (Vol.51, p.578062). Frontiers Media SA. 10.3389/feduc.2020.578062
     https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.578062 [Google Scholar]
  44. List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y.
    (2019) Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 581, 228–242. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. List, A., Stephens, L. A., & Alexander, P. A.
    (2019) Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307–333. 10.1007/s11145‑018‑9863‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9863-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Maier, J., and Richter, T.
    (2016) Effects of text-belief consistency and reading task on the strategic validation of multiple texts. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ.311, 479–497. 10.1007/s10212‑015‑0270‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0270-9 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mateos, M., & Solé, I.
    (2009) Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 435–451. 10.1007/BF03178760
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178760 [Google Scholar]
  48. McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2021) The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 196–214. 10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379 [Google Scholar]
  49. Meltzer, L., Katzir-Cohen, T., Miller, L., & Roditi, B.
    (2001) The impact of effort and strategy use on academic performance: Student and teacher perceptions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 85–98. 10.2307/1511065
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1511065 [Google Scholar]
  50. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K.
    (2012) The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific studies of reading, 16(2), 91–121. 10.1080/10888438.2010.529219
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.529219 [Google Scholar]
  51. OECD
    OECD (2019) PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, 10.1787/b25efab8‑en
     https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en [Google Scholar]
  52. Ouellette, G. P.
    (2006) What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 98(3), 554. 10.1037/0022‑0663.98.3.554
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C. A., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2013) Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology [Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale], 67(3), 215–227. 10.1037/a0032918
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032918 [Google Scholar]
  54. Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., . . . Tao, S.
    (2018) A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 48–76. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/10.1037/bul0000124. 10.1037/bul0000124
     https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124 [Google Scholar]
  55. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A.
    (1999) Towards a theory of documents representation. InH. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.). The construction of mental representations during reading (pp.88–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Perfetti, C.
    (2007) Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific studies of reading, 11(4), 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730 [Google Scholar]
  57. Primor, L., & Katzir, T.
    (2018) Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 91. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294 [Google Scholar]
  58. Primor, L., Yeari, M., & Katzir, T.
    (2021) Choosing the right question: the effect of different question types on multiple text integration. Reading and Writing, 1–29. 10.1007/s11145‑021‑10127‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10127-8 [Google Scholar]
  59. Prior, A.
    (2012) Too much of a good thing: Stronger bilingual inhibition leads to larger lag-2 task repetition costs. Cognition, 1251, 1–12. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  60. Renninger, K. A., & Bachrach, J. E.
    (2015) Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 58–69. 10.1080/00461520.2014.999920
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.999920 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A.
    (2011) Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. InM. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp.19–52). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M.
    (2017) RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 521, 200–215. 10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015 [Google Scholar]
  63. Segev-Miller, R.
    (2004) Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 41, 5–33. 10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af [Google Scholar]
  64. Shani, M., Lachman, D., Shalem, Z., Bahat, A., & Zeiger, T.
    (2006) Alef ad Taf. Ma’arexet le’ivhum likuyim betahalixei kri’a vektiva (Aleph-Taf. Diagnostic test battery for written language disorders). Holon: Mofet Institute and Nitzan Association, Yesod Press [In Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Shipley, W. C.
    (1940) A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 371–377. 10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704 [Google Scholar]
  66. Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R.
    (1989) Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 241, 7–26. 10.1598/RRQ.24.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.24.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stadtler, M.
    (2017) The art of reading in a knowledge society: commentary on the special issue on models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 225–231. 10.1080/00461520.2017.1322969
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322969 [Google Scholar]
  68. Tarchi, C., & Ledesma, L. C.
    (2024) Readers’ awareness in the use of intertextual strategies when writing from multiple texts. Journal of Writing Research. https://www.jowr.org/pkp/ojs/index.php/jowr/article/view/1279. 10.17239/jowr‑2024.16.02.03
     https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2024.16.02.03 [Google Scholar]
  69. Temelman-Yogev, L., Katzir, T., & Prior, A.
    (2020) Monitoring comprehension in a foreign language: Trait or skill?. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 343–365. 10.1007/s11409‑020‑09245‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09245-5 [Google Scholar]
  70. van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., & Rijlaarsdam, G.
    (2019) Learning to write synthesis texts: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 402–428. 10.17239/jowr‑2019.10.03.01
     https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01 [Google Scholar]
  71. Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L.
    (2010) Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817. 10.1037/a0020062
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062 [Google Scholar]
  72. Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D.
    (2003) The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 550–564. 10.3758/BF03195534
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195534 [Google Scholar]
  73. Zachary, R. A.
    (1991) The manual of the Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Zink, T., Hahnel, C., Kroehne, U.
    Fostering multiple document comprehension: motivational factors and its relationship with the use of self-study materials. Z Erziehungswiss261, 727–750 (2023) 10.1007/s11618‑023‑01163‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-023-01163-x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
Loading
Predicting multiple-text integration
Written Language & Literacy 27, 31 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00082.pri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): adult literacy; higher education; multiple-text integration; reading comprehension; writing synthesis

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error